Walking the plank ...

[Trakgalvis]

Emails from Eric, make it clear to me that the best thing for PPUK is for me to go. If the reasons for my leaving are resolved, I will be back. Good luck, and I hope that PPUK is a great success.

[epriezka]

Emails from Eric, make it clear to me that the best thing for PPUK is for me to go. If the reasons for my leaving are resolved, I will be back. Good luck, and I hope that PPUK is a great success.

I didn't tell trakgalvis to go. He said I had to go or he'd go. All this 'me or him' stuff is getting ridiculous. They'll be nobody left in the party at this rate. Or rather just one person left. Think of it as a bizarre experiment to see who is the last person standing. It probably won't be me.

[Trakgalvis]

Emails from Eric, make it clear to me that the best thing for PPUK is for me to go. If the reasons for my leaving are resolved, I will be back. Good luck, and I hope that PPUK is a great success.

I didn't tell trakgalvis to go. He said I had to go or he'd go. All this 'me or him' stuff is getting ridiculous. They'll be nobody left in the party at this rate. Or rather just one person left. Think of it as a bizarre experiment to see who is the last person standing. It probably won't be me.

If you read what I put, it does not say you told me to go. However, I did think my going was the best thing for PPUK, given what you had said. Also, I did not give just the one option, did I? Also, even the option you refer to here, is misrepresented, as I did not ask you to leave PPUK. Please don't discuss this here. I was careful not to give details on the forum.

Best of luck, Eric.

[Murton]

It seems we have more drama for this week and a worrying trend developing in general.


We seriously need to get our act and together and focus objectively on our goals or we're going to sink before we even leave port.

[Trakgalvis]

It seems we have more drama for this week and a worrying trend developing in general.


We seriously need to get our act and together and focus objectively on our goals or we're going to sink before we even leave port.

I agree. We need to establish minimum standards for our interactions, and these should apply equally (if not more so) to the officers.

[Judy]

I have found the rudeness of many of the recent interactions on this site very disturbing. I do not think that disagreement is any reason for the kind of language that has been used and largely accepted.

I am strongly behind the core policies of PPUK but find myself wondering what it is worth if asking simple questions can lead to such over-reactions.

I am therefore leaving the group, although if things settle down and are resolved I will be happy to come back.

[cabalamat]

It seems we have more drama for this week and a worrying trend developing in general.

We seriously need to get our act and together and focus objectively on our goals or we're going to sink before we even leave port.

I agree. Today the government are likely to announce plans to destroy the civli liberties of internet users. We should be fighting them, not each other.

[bitplane]

I have found the rudeness of many of the recent interactions on this site very disturbing. I do not think that disagreement is any reason for the kind of language that has been used and largely accepted.

I'm joining this piece of drama rather late and have no idea what went on, but from where I'm standing it looks like you think that your right to not be offended is worth more than the rights of others to freely express themselves. In which case you either don't understand or don't support freedom of speech.

[Trakgalvis]

I have found the rudeness of many of the recent interactions on this site very disturbing. I do not think that disagreement is any reason for the kind of language that has been used and largely accepted.

I'm joining this piece of drama rather late and have no idea what went on, but from where I'm standing it looks like you think that your right to not be offended is worth more than the rights of others to freely express themselves. In which case you either don't understand or don't support freedom of speech.

First, the context to Judy's remark matters here. Second, if you think an officer ranting at its members is an effective way to run a campaign, you are wrong. If we are still trying to change the law, we will not do it in the manner you seem to think we can.

Think about what we want to do, and do it in the most effective way. We want to put pressure on changing the law.

[epriezka]

However, Judy and I were just the sort of people you needed to actually achieve your goal. Sad, don't you think, to push out the people who could get what you want.

Pompous nitwit. From my experience of this person, he is the last person this party needs. That's because the party doesn't need people who flood other people's inboxes with emails brimming with unsolicited and unhelpful stories about their personal lives in an obvious and feeble attempt to get attention. The party doesn't need people who insist on handing out detailed advice about how to do things, even though they've given no reason to believe their skills, accomplishments or experience are superior to anyone else's. The party doesn't need people who continue to send unwanted emails even when firmly and robustly told to stop. The party doesn't need people who join one week, then next week act like a drama queen, making demands that start "I will not take any more part in the PPUK until..." and then go on to repeatedly insist that they will leave unless they are listened to. The party doesn't need people who repeat over and over, in forums and emails, that they are then leaving, because they have not been listened to. The party doesn't need people who demand their access is withdrawn, even though others are busy doing more important things. The party doesn't need people who say they want their access taken away, but who then repeatedly log on to write even more posts. The party doesn't need people who, compared to other members, have done very little, whilst at the same time they try to attract an awful lot of attention to themselves through forum posts and emails, and continue to do so even though they also keep on insisting that they are leaving. The party doesn't need people that are convinced that they alone have the special talents that the party needs, and that the party will only succeed if it listens to them before all others. Why would any group of people be better off for including individuals like this?

Given that this person has said he is leaving the party time and again, I look forward to the inevitable irony of his response to this forum post. In it, he will explain how he's right, and quite possible stir up yet more trouble in the process, which is the one thing he has consistently done throughout his stream of duplicitous, insincere and self-absorbed correspondence. That correspondence vacillates between extremes of sycophancy and conceit. These are exactly the qualities of someone who thinks they are the ideal person to join, or more probably to lead a team, but in fact are the absolute opposite of the necessary qualities of humility, constancy and dedication.

Shame on me for attacking a fellow member... shame on me... must put the hairshirt on and flagellate myself for doing so. I should bite my tongue whilst letting this man rant on and on. Yes, lowered myself again. Must remember that if people attack you, it's for your own good and the good of the party, but if you strike back, then you're hurting the party...

This person wants attention, not to help.

I really wish this person would go away as he keeps promising, as I am convinced that PPUK would be better off without him.

[rancidpunk]

I have to ask you to stop this for the sake of the party, we can't afford to further this split, I have resigned, and trakglavis and judy have left.
If you would like me to leave the party completely, I will do so if you will agree to focus on the Pirate Party.
You are a professional person and I am not. We need a good treasurer more than we need words that I can contribute.
I apologise again for any personal offence I have caused you.
I apologise again for any harm that I might have caused to the party.

[Murton]

It seems we have an issue with our internal diplomacy here.

A worrying trend seems to have developed where minor disagreements result in personal attacks in public, certainly not a good thing for the party regardless of which members are involved, especially . I would like to think that we're all adult here and we can deal with disagreements in a more constructive and diplomatic manner than we have seen recently.

So far I've not had cause to reduce my rather modest involvement with the party, I'm not a paid member yet (was waiting until payday) but I'd like to think that I've proved a helpful and active member of the community so far, I must say however that this level of hostility can be reached so quickly over trivial matters then it's going to give other members and prospective members cause for second thought regarding their involvement or even their joining.


Food for thought that will hopefully avoid another episode of this sad weekly PPUK drama.

[JohnB]

It seems we have an issue with our internal diplomacy here.

A worrying trend seems to have developed where minor disagreements result in personal attacks in public, certainly not a good thing for the party regardless of which members are involved, especially . I would like to think that we're all adult here and we can deal with disagreements in a more constructive and diplomatic manner than we have seen recently.

So far I've not had cause to reduce my rather modest involvement with the party, I'm not a paid member yet (was waiting until payday) but I'd like to think that I've proved a helpful and active member of the community so far, I must say however that this level of hostility can be reached so quickly over trivial matters then it's going to give other members and prospective members cause for second thought regarding their involvement or even their joining.


Food for thought that will hopefully avoid another episode of this sad weekly PPUK drama.

From what I've been able to learn, not having been particularly involved, trakgalvis started to become a real nuisance, both in continuous disruptive forum posts and refusal to accept that he couldn't just decide by himself what we needed to do, and how to move forward, and also by email being disruptive and provocative. Our officers are worked hard enough; not surprising it all blew up in the end.

For this reason I support the main forums being posting only to members (maybe we can consider view/read-only to everyone, then dissenters can post their views in open subforums). This also confirms my view that it was right to charge a modest membership fee, which means that someone who isn't willing to show a real contribution is not able to affect the ordinary working and internal discussion of the party. Those who really have something to say, and want us to succeed, will be only too pleased to contribute to us, and put their point in the member forums; whereas anyone not willing to do that, or still thinking about whether they really want to support PPUK, can use the open forums to do that, without interfering with member discussions.

[johnsmithson]

It seems we have an issue with our internal diplomacy here.

A worrying trend seems to have developed where minor disagreements result in personal attacks in public, certainly not a good thing for the party regardless of which members are involved, especially . I would like to think that we're all adult here and we can deal with disagreements in a more constructive and diplomatic manner than we have seen recently.

So far I've not had cause to reduce my rather modest involvement with the party, I'm not a paid member yet (was waiting until payday) but I'd like to think that I've proved a helpful and active member of the community so far, I must say however that this level of hostility can be reached so quickly over trivial matters then it's going to give other members and prospective members cause for second thought regarding their involvement or even their joining.


Food for thought that will hopefully avoid another episode of this sad weekly PPUK drama.

From what I've been able to learn, not having been particularly involved, trakgalvis started to become a real nuisance, both in continuous disruptive forum posts and refusal to accept that he couldn't just decide by himself what we needed to do, and how to move forward, and also by email being disruptive and provocative. Our officers are worked hard enough; not surprising it all blew up in the end.

For this reason I support the main forums being posting only to members (maybe we can consider view/read-only to everyone, then dissenters can post their views in open subforums). This also confirms my view that it was right to charge a modest membership fee, which means that someone who isn't willing to show a real contribution is not able to affect the ordinary working and internal discussion of the party. Those who really have something to say, and want us to succeed, will be only too pleased to contribute to us, and put their point in the member forums; whereas anyone not willing to do that, or still thinking about whether they really want to support PPUK, can use the open forums to do that, without interfering with member discussions.

Is it not unfair to post hearsay about someone on the public web? Where are his disruptive posts? Who decided that they were disruptive?

I am beginning to wonder if any suggestion of change will be seen as disruptive.

We need people who can swim against the tide, if we hope to change the UK.